@wiki: sorry but your latter points barely make sense to me, and I am quite capable of making sense of things which many find to be intractable.

Thus "Which part of "if a site were intent on dishonesty it would just use its own choice of cards from time to time. No point in tampering with the RNG" are you having trouble understanding?"

I think the person who is having trouble understanding the points I've raised is guess who?

"As they were one of the two entities whose employment you suggested would enhance the credibility of poker sites that was a pretty big fail on your part. " - they've many highly prestigious and impartial clients who would definitely not agree with you, I suggest you'd find. So, it's not at all right to suggest it's a failing on my part to include Accenture (as Anderson is in 2011) as one of the possibilities of the big five capable of analysing RNG's!

And then... you decide: "As I said it's not worth their while spending the money when the whole process is only in place to keep a few dork-brains happy."

Well, I luckily don't have a 'dork brain'. Those who question the RNG mechanisms involved are not 'dork brains' solely because they require better & more credible proof? What's more, I'm reasonably sure that I'm not the only one who'd like the issue of RNG certification given the treatment which I've argued above; matters which have been given not enough prioritisation, to date, on all poker sites.

Anyway, I'm quite sure there are others who've read my points, & who've had no difficulty in understanding and accepting them as valid. And perhaps you will regard them as "dork brains" too.

I'm sorry that you view the issue of how much greater priority the sites should give to proving the proper & impartial working of RNG mechanisms, as being one worth little, if any concern, to the poker sites. And yet you think that it would be a waste of money to get a world respected firm (as mentioned) occasionally to take on such a task, in the name of settling this query once and for all. Still, I'd hope that your trivialisation of how unimportant is the proper working of any site's RNG, is an opinion which does not extend much further than to few others. Otherwise we can look forward to the sites giving even lesser time and effort into proving the credibility of same.

Such, as I've argued, would indeed require spending a significant sum of money to significant world reputed and recognised firms, But then again, the sites themselves would surely win back so much more confidence (& business) from the many doubters who exist, and may well win over many new players who have been sitting on the sidelines only because they are suspicious of the integrity of online poker. And surely that's a gamble worth taking

LOL, well come on, then, explain why anyone with half a brain is going to concern themselves with the site's RNG when: if the site were going to rig the deal they would simply ignore the RNG.

Correct because only a dork-brain would waste time worrying about the RNG when: if the site were going to rig the deal they would simply ignore the RNG.

That isn't a question.

Yup, there is a fair collection of people who cannot seem to understand that the RNG is pretty much irrelevant if a site is intent on wrong doing because they would simply ignore it.

It doesn't matter who did the certification because the RNG would be bypassed.

Anyone who cannot grasp the fairly simple concept that a site that wants to rig the deal will simply ignore the RNG and continues to obsess about what is thus an irrelevance is clearly not the brightest knife in the drawer.

The opinion that obsessing about a site's RNG will be shared by anyone without the intelligence to grasp the simple and, I would have thought, obvious fact that: if the site were going to rig the deal they would simply ignore the RNG.

In reality it seems that those who are too stupid to understand that the RNG is a red herring (because if the site were going to rig the deal they would simply ignore the RNG), is probably also sufficiently stupid to keep playing on a site even though they don't trust it.

I just counted at least six separate paragraphs in which basically the same (broken record) is recounted by you, thus:

"if the site were going to rig the deal they would simply ignore the RNG),"

perhaps you have little understanding of how an RNG works or how it may be tampered with in such a way that it still appears random, even to many experts, and yet you don't think that it's an issue at all worth thinking about.

Can I be bothered arguing any further with you?

If you would like to hear more from me on this, then please at least try repeating yourself fewer than 6 times in one post. In my experience of life, such uncalled for repetition is most boring, to put it mildly.

Nietzchean, don't fall for the ad hominem and ad nauseum.

Indeed good sir, I am reasonably well acquainted with the minor and major logical fallacies, and sought not to, -which is partly why I challenged both his repeated use of his ad hominem "dork brains" and the repeated "ad nausem" as above. Still had to give him a chance to respond without all the rehetorical diatribe, just n case he had something useful to counter-argue despite all else said so far. So no worries on that front

ROFLMAO.

Well, you managed to notice that the same thing was repeated over and over which at least shows that you are paying some kind of attention.

The reason it is repeated over and over again is simply that you refuse to actually consider what you are asking for in relation to how it would fit into the scheme of things if a site were intent on rigging the deal.

What you still don't seem to have managed to do is to get over your obsession with auditing the RNG and actually THINK about how a site would gimmick the deal.

I know in some detail how several types of RNG work but I'm not concerned with that here because I also know how you use the output of the RNG to simulate a shuffled deck and am thus aware that trying to get some subtle effect in game play by modifying the RNG would be all but impossible.

So if you want to gimmick the deal - and here we move to the point that you appear to be wilfully ignoring - the site would not tamper with the RNG. They would ignore it!

So, explain this to me: What would be the point in going to a great deal of trouble and expense by having the RNG audited by some major accounting firm when that RNG would be completely bypassed in order to rig the deal?

The answer is that the only purpose it would serve would be to satisfy a bunch of ******s who cannot get their heads around the concept that the RNG would not be used in any real sense to rig the deal.

What you need to realise is that whilst an ad hominen forms no part in the proof of a logical argument it also should, to anyone capable of logical thought, not form any part of the process of disproving it.

The only reason for the repetition is that you are continually ignoring what is the most important part of the argument as to why an expensive audit of an RNG is irrelevant except to assuage the concerns of fairly stupid people. That being because the intelligent will have realised that the RNG output would be irrelevant if a site were rigging the deal.

Further to your last post:

Mr Wiki, would you now please confirm (1) that those who are absolutely certain that all the poker sites could not manipulate the RNG for whatever purpose, are wise people.

And (2) that those who would like more proof, more accountability and higher precedence given to demonstrating that the RNG is absolutely random and working as efficiently as is reasonably possible, are in your words "******s"?

edit: on your last point: it is my opinion that those who attempt to introduce logical fallacies in proving their argument, should have used, at the very least, better rhetorical devices (i.e,. sound logical construction would've been preferable) in arguing with those who are capable of seeing them for what they are.

I can confirm that they are wise enough to understand how a programmer would use the output of an RNG and that having that knowledge they would understand completely that auditing the RNG would be irrelevant because a site intent on malfeasance would simply ignore it.

They are not necessarily ******s for simply suggesting it might be a good idea.

Where they pass from 'uninformed' to 'idiotic' is when they repeatedly ignore information that they have been given and continue to bleat about something that is irrelevant to their concerns.

Yes, but since you have repeatedly ignored sound logical argument it's hard to be sure that you can understand it. You seem to be blind to any argument that does not support you rather twisted idea of how an RNG fits into the general scheme of things. In other words, you are doing a pretty good job of imitating an idiot.

On the plus side, your spelling and punctuation are acceptable.

hahha awesome

You should learn that the use of a logical fallacy in argument, is, on the contrary, a perfectly sound reason for someone's countering its usage in his disapproval of same. Thus, this, in bold, is a nonsense:

"What you need to realise is that whilst an ad hominen forms no part in the proof of a logical argument it also should, to anyone capable of logical thought, not form any part of the process of disproving it."


And, as for:

"You seem to be blind to any argument that does not support you rather twisted idea of how an RNG fits into the general scheme of things."

How can I be "blind" to such possibility when all I am calling for is greater openness, accountability and analysis by world renowned experts in the field - whereas you wish to budge not an iota beyond the current closed status quo!?

I would suggest that many of those who are reading this thread will be left in no doubt which of us was really blind to the possibilities of an open minded debate on the issue of whether we should comfortably settle for unquestioned faith in the sites' assertions that their RNG's are absolutely secure and beyond further analysis.

You clown, we don't even know what type they use because rather than let a real gaming audit co inspect their servers they send source code to a guy named "Paco Hope".

Oh yea that really makes me feel good about their games. HAHAHA. Give it a rest their shuffle method does not use a 52 card deck. Neither do any of the sites offering blackjack.

http://www.pokerjunkie.com/poker-blo...esting-the-rng

It will be so different when these sites have to host their hardware here.

You need to be able to separate the argument from the ad hominem.

This is where you seem to be lacking in rational ability.

You are blind (you have yet again completely ignored the relevant information) because you seem to be too stupid to understand that a site that is intending to rig the deal will ignore the RNG. There are very sound programming reasons for this.

But you blithely ignore all that and just keep bleating about 'openness' concerning a factor that would play no part in any wrongdoing by the site.

The ******s will love you.

They will see a kindred spirit in someone who is capable of ignoring the realities of the situation and can continue to obsess about an irrelevancy.

But I wouldn't take much comfort from that because impressing a bunch of idiots is no real achievement.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Again, Wiki, you called me an "idiot" which I am not so sure is within the spirit of this forum. Nonetheless, I am no "dork brain" idiot, but that's just another predictably dumb ad hominen issued by guess who!? Well done for this much: Your poor rhetorical skills have finally won over my indifference in responding any further to you. If you had any idea of just my educational achievements you would be feeling a little awkward even to suggest that I am "blind" to your argument. If so it's most definitely because your argument, as written above, is so flawed, so narrow minded, point missing, and puerile, that that is why I am blind to it, if you must know. But you'll not accept that, and I'm sure you've every reason to believe you are a genius. And I hope you spend your life letting people know just how certain you are of your beliefs.

Meanwhile, it's now too predictably obvious that you clearly know little if anything about how an RNG may be manipulated and as such you are most welcome to judge me as you have. I would expect little more of someone like you, given the quality of all your responses to date. I stand by what I've argued above, and am very comfortable with the fact that there will be some who do not accept what I've written.

In before wiki says you are blind or he calls u an idiot again...LOL

That's only true as it applies to Newtonian physics.

As a result, the random number generator used by a site like PokerStars uses quantum physics, which is truly random.

Not where I play. Not even close.....

No, there's not.

You can investigate anything you want.

This guy reviewed a whole lot of aspects of the shuffle: http://www.spadebidder.com/

You can read his analysis on his website.

'cause you don't even bother to read this thread, I'm not going to bother retyping all this stuff:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ostcount=14061
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ostcount=14924

Here are two likely explanations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

I'll bite. Thus far, you haven't actually given any examples, you've just said "There are ways to manipulate the RNG so that it looks like you aren't".

Now, I imagine you're talking about something like the site using an RNG to deal out 2, 6, 8, 9 or whatever hands, then using some other method to decide who gets each hand or whatever. What you haven't explained is how the sites can do this:
1) without people involved leaking it
2) while increasing profits
3) without doing it "too often"

You also haven't mentioned how somehow every online site uses the same type of rigging. Is there a 5 man lizard people crew that goes around setting them up?

I'll refrain from calling you names or anything since that hurts your feelings, but Occam's Razor leads us to believe that a site just deals cards and collects rake, not that it has teams of people program its software to favor certain players.

If you'd done your research, you'd know it was.

And yet you continue to act as if you were.

Curiouser and curiouser,

It's so easy to talk about you educational achievements when no one can check them, isn't it?

But the point is that you are demonstrating pig headed stubbornness. You may have a BA in media studies for all I know but you have not yet demonstrated any capability for logical thought.

ROFLMAO!

And yet, rather that take the course that any truely educated and rational person would do when faced with a 'flawed, so narrow minded, point missing, and puerile' argument, which is to easily demonstrate its fallacy, you just continue to whine about meta-argument.

LOL. More pompous blustering.

Clue: If you believe you haver the vaguest idea how anyone could manipulate the RNG in order to give a certain player some advantage, why don't you enumerate the technique instead of boasting about how clever you are.

That is what would impress people and allow them to see your God like reasoning skills rather than what they can see at present: a rather sad little nobody puffing up his chest and claiming all sorts of educational achievements and reasoning abilities without demonstrating any.

Such a well reasoned, brilliant response to someone who makes a legitimate point that you happen to disregard. Anyone who disagrees with Wiki is now a "******'s ******." What an *******.

This troll festival has only one result : hide fact that online poker can be rigged because is out of any control.

Main reason for rigging online poker is : avoid small % of players take out big % of moneys. Because this moneys belong to real sharks : owners of site.
FPP pros can disagree as workers of site.

Your argument about action hands reducing rake only works for cash tables though, doesn't it? I think it's the opposite case for tournaments isn't it?


Spadebidder reviewed a lot of the basic aspects of the deal, but this still didn't extend as far as the 'carve-ups' I was talking about. So for example, how often do hands come up which look 'designed' for players to get all the chips in and how often should this happen. I can't see a way to investigate that but maybe it would be easier than I think.

Also, we can't investigate 'anything we want,' due to opponents cards being hidden unless the hand goes to showdown. So, I could be getting dealt a completely random sample of hands, but my opponent could be getting dealt aces 20% too often and I wouldn't know about it.


So, you seem to be suggesting I'm misjudging, imagining or not using a big enough sample size, when I commented on the differences between my live game and online poker. I'm just reporting what I've witnessed, that's all, I think it's too convenient or easy to your 'online poker is perfectly fair' argument to come out and simply suggest I'm imagining things.